Conservative think tank: abolish net neutrality, gut FCC powers

The Heritage Foundation, a top conservative think tank, says Congress should …

One of the nation's top conservative think tanks has issued a report urging Congress to review 20 "unnecessary and harmful regulations" that the group says should be clipped as soon as possible. Three of the 20 are administered by the Federal Communications Commission, notes the Heritage Foundation's new Rolling Back Red Tape backgrounder, and involve oversight over ISPs and media acquisitions.

"This regulatory tide must be reversed," Heritage's Dianne Katz concludes. "Policy­makers should not just prevent harmful new regulations, but must repeal costly and unnecessary rules already on the books."

Here are the three FCC-related powers on the list.

Net neutrality

No surprise that Heritage gives the FCC's new Open Internet Order top billing for repeal. The agency released the rules in December, and even though they exempt wireless broadband from any unreasonable discrimination provisions, Verizon and MetroPCS are suing the FCC anyway.

Rescind them, says Heritage, and block the FCC from spending any appropriated money to enforce the provisions.

"The new rules would hobble the ability of network owners to efficiently manage traffic flows, as well as chill the investment needed to keep the Internet growing," the report warns. "The end result: a slower and less dynamic Web. In addition, the rules give the government a role in deciding how content is treated on the Web, potentially threatening the free flow of information."

Media ownership rules

Over the last 70 years, both Congress and the FCC have enacted rules limiting the number of television and radio stations any single entity can own. These include a "dual network ban" going back to the World War II era that restricted any company to the ownership of one network (the target was NBC, which dropped a rib that eventually became ABC).

Companies like Clear Channel have long opposed the Commission's provision limiting the number of radio stations an entity can buy in any one market. The government's newspaper/TV station cross-ownership rule has been a particularly hot topic. The FCC is currently reviewing all these regulations, as the agency must every four years.

Heritage says the cross-ownership rule has definitely got to go.

"Most of these rules are decades old, dating back as far as 1941. The media world, however, has changed dramatically since that time," the report contends. "In such a world, ownership restrictions on media outlets make little sense." Competitive problems can be handled via the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

FCC merger review authority

Through the long process approving the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, conservatives argued that the government was hamstringing the new entity with unnecessary public interest conditions. Among them: the merger agreement stipulates that the new Comcast can't "exercise corporate control over or unreasonably withhold programming from Hulu," which it will now partially own.

But the report insists that Comcast and NBCU didn't compete with each other. "Congress should restrict the FCC's authority to review license transfers to a simple confirmation that the new licensee is eligible to hold the license," Heritage concludes.

The Heritage Foundation is not alone in its disdain for the FCC's regulatory powers. On the first day of the new Congress, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a bill that would bar the Commission from any further regulation of the Internet. With the Democrats still in charge of the Senate, prospects for legislation that limits the FCC's powers making it to President Obama's desk seem remote.

It still amazes me how Conservatives talk about Net Neutrality as a bad thing in any way shape or form for the consumer. They talk about choice in the free market but then immediately bash the very regulations (such as NN or Line Sharing) that are necessary to return anything resembling a free market to the ISP business.

"The end result: a slower and less dynamic Web. In addition, the rules give the government a role in deciding how content is treated on the Web, potentially threatening the free flow of information."

Is this actually a joke? The internet STARTED as an open network, with the free exchange of information as a goal. The FCC appears to want the same to continue; that information should be exchanged without restricting or "prioritizing" different information.

These scum-sucking ISPs would like nothing less than to completely halt external services and only promote their own, as they've done with the cable industry.

I don't see anything these right-wing loonies are trying to do as anything less than promote company over country.

One of the many reasons I can not stand the entire right wing. Screw the middle, lower, working class and cater to the corperations and top 1%. I am ashamed with Marsha Blackburns stance since the majority of Tennessee residents would prosper from net neutrality.

Big media loves open and free markets so long as there's no real or open competition. The motivation for these reports/suggestions and the sure to come legislation citing it is clear, just follow the money trail that feeds it.

Hey, I'm all for repealing the laws and whatnot. Problem is, you'll end up with a regulatory framework just like Canada's, where the incumbents make the rules because of market forces, and stifle innovation and competition which ultimately requires the government to step in ANYWAY and try to fix the problem. There's no guarantee that 'market forces' will allow a free and fair internet any more than there is that market forces have guaranteed free and equitable access to other resources.

It's tremendously ironic that the Heritage group calls the current set of strictures outdated, implying that their existence since 1941 makes them archaic, but COMPLETELY ignores the changing market practices of competition in a digital age.

It's only broken from the front page. If you did what I did, and go into the actual forum, you can nuke it from there. And apparently, it's been nuked

Anywho, I'm not sure I'm too happy about this. I'm all for companies managing their networks, and things like QoS for both phone and video would be really nice, as well as QoS services for gaming. However, if this comes at the cost of being able to choose who we get our content from, I don't want it to happen. Part of the reason why the FCC brought up the whole "don't neuter Hulu" argument was because hulu is an established name that is doing quite well right now, and with it's new ownership, Comcast could effectively shut it down. Yes, they can still attempt to produce their own offerings on their network, but there are millions of americans who don't use Comcast, and would actively switch to another provider if one was available that wasn't crap. Things like that.

One one hand they are against net neutrality because they are concerned that it may "threaten the free flow of information. On the other they ok with allowing companies to own more media outlets in the same market stifling the diversity and flow of information?

If you browse around on opensecrets.org, you can find similar donations for John Boehner (R-OH), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Greg Walden (R-OR), and Terry Lee (R-NE)--all staunch net neutrality opponents... See a pattern?

Dear Republicans: Thanks for selling out the public interest to the telecoms.

"In addition, the rules give the government a role in deciding how content is treated on the Web, potentially threatening the free flow of information."

This is a shockingly disingenuous statement. Yes, in this case the government interference will decide how content is treated, and that decision will be to treat content "equally", therefore upholding the free flow of information threatened by ISPs who want to block or charge for information that is not of their choosing.

I'd be happy to listen to cogent arguments as to why net neutrality is bad, but when a "think-tank" comes out with such ridiculous double speak as this, you know that the hand of lobbyists is behind it.

Idiots. Sounds like they're as stupid as Alan Greenspan (and the legion of idiots that fell for his nonsense). Let the telecoms regulate themselves... they won't rape consumers, of course not.

It's time government stepped up to the plate and worked in the interest of those who elected them -- the people, the consumers -- not corporations. What corporations want should be of no concern to elected officials.

Basically, the Heritage foundation came out in favor of allowing oligarchs to continue dominating the little people because it's what the invisible hand of the free market and the foundation's funders demand.

Maybe it's socialist of me, but I don't actually think allowing companies to do whatever makes them the most money is actually in my best interests of that of society at large.

conservative rich people are generally selfish jackasses. if 8 years of Bush didn't teach them that they're wrong, there's really no hope that they'll ever learn why government needs to provide a check against corporations who will NEVER have the people's best interests in mind.

Heritage is completely wrong on these issues. It frustrates me that I like a lot of the things they bring up, but they get things ridiculously wrong when it comes to communications, media, and mergers. I'm stuck in that middle area between the conservative and liberal sides being tugged around by both groups because they think they can win me over. Wrong. The answer is in the middle. You can not win me over because I want a mix of both sides.

The FCC needs to push companies to improve their networks, increase speeds, embrace new technologies, and lower prices. We need real net neutrality that's looking ahead to foster the growth of internet-based businesses. What Heritage wants is to line the pockets of the existing businesses and shut out those who come along next. The FCC needs to protect Netflix, Tivo, OnLive, Vonage, steaming TV services, and others from the incumbent ISPs which will stop at nothing to shut out those new competitors. Heritage wants to help the ISPs shut out new competitors, and that sickens me. I don't want the status quo. I want something faster and better. In an environment where every mom and pop business can't string up their own wires freely or transmit their own data over any wireless spectrum they want, it is critical for the FCC to provide order.

One one hand they are against net neutrality because they are concerned that it may "threaten the free flow of information. On the other they ok with allowing companies to own more media outlets in the same market stifling the diversity and flow of information?

Am I missing something?

Groupthink?

Going through their list, I see several points that I fully agree with (dairy control, sugar restrictions, SOX), but most of her points seem to be written by an absolute nutter.

Being conservative implies that you are in some way resistant to change, or your prefer traditional ways. What these so-called conservatives are proposing is that we fundamentally alter the way the Internet works, and we gut a long-standing regulatory body in the process. That's not conservative. It's incredibly radical and goes against decades of progress.

This isn't really a matter of being "conservative". It's a matter of who is giving who a handjob under the table. And the big telecoms and ISPs have a big smile on their face right now.

It bothers me when groups like the Heritage Foundation get into these areas of policy. They are obviously picking and choosing based on their own pocketbook rather than any conservative principle. Gives real conservatives a bad name. Telcos and cable companies have become the Republican equivalent of the Democrats trial lawyers...

I do agree that deregulation is needed. The first step: getting rid of all that red tape that you need to start a competing business. And to give newbies a fair start, how about a policy of open access with the infrastructure that was provided by federal funds, including special tax cuts. IIRC, that put the amount of infrastructure the federal government has paid for somewhere around 10 times what consumers actually get. Since I'm feeling gracious, I'll even be okay with cutting that to what we've got right now, making that about a 90% discount on the debt.

One one hand they are against net neutrality because they are concerned that it may "threaten the free flow of information. On the other they ok with allowing companies to own more media outlets in the same market stifling the diversity and flow of information?

Am I missing something?

The real reasoning in both situations is that it protects the ability for any individual or company to make maximum profit from an industry possible, what a free market really entails (dunno where these people studied economics, I sure wasn't ever taught that free market means high levels of competition or consumer satisfaction. If there's high barriers to entry, the maximum profit that can be made sky rockets for a small handful). Because this doesn't look so good in a press release, they come up with some reasons to sell it to the populace and to give conservatives talking points on why this government regulation is bad.

That they're contradictory is pretty much standard for a conservative think tank.

Please don't be so blindly partisan to think either party is looking out for your best interests. Whether Republicans give the power directly to the corporate lobby group, or the Democrats appease the corporate lobby groups but sugarcoat it first, you're still getting screwed.

I'm not even going to propose a solution, I think the whole country is screwed. Vote Ron Paul!

This is a case where the nation's overall familiarity with technology (or lack thereof) hurts all of us. The Conservatives are clearly only interested in helping out big business at the expense of everyone else, but when the conservative leaders pitch net-neutrality as something harmful to the overall health and development of the Internet, their legions of ignorant Luddite followers will eat it up.

The GOP is unfortunately made up mostly of the middle aged and above chunks of the population, and many of them have only no idea how the Internet works and what kinds of innovation will be stymied fnet neutrality doesn't get off the ground.

We need a public information and education campaign to help people understand why net neutrality is important, and why we need it.

SOMEWHAT OT: Everyone here should watch "Capitalism: A Love Story" - once you filter out the left-leaning bias but still allow for the fact that the right IS more culpable than the left, you will be very angry if you care AT ALL about this country (USA) anymore... The shit that went down around the bias outs under Bush and then Obama is.... just amazingly startling.

Both sides are to blame, the right more than the left (thinking of deregulation under Reagon and Bush Pt 2), but at the end for the day, when someone tells you that corporate America is really in control - it's really not all that inaccurate of a statement. The upper 1% really do have the vast VAST majority of all of the money (over 90%) and have way more control over things that anyone here would like to believe...

Trust me, just go watch it. I hate M Moore and his USUAL style of documentary, but i still managed to find THIS documentary compelling.

PS - Calling today's "conservative's" that title is almost a joke a this point...

It bothers me when groups like the Heritage Foundation get into these areas of policy. They are obviously picking and choosing based on their own pocketbook rather than any conservative principle. Gives real conservatives a bad name. Telcos and cable companies have become the Republican equivalent of the Democrats trial lawyers...

Bingo. Their entire stance is "let the market decide," without concern for whether or not a company effectively has a stranglehold on the local market. Don't like Comcast, but they're the only high-speed ISP in the area? Too bad. Switch to dial-up or don't use the Internet.

It's why I can't sign on with strict Conservative ideals. They are only concerned with the benefits to business, not how businesses can take advantage of consumers who have no equivalent option in the market.

"The new rules would hobble the ability of network owners to efficiently manage traffic flows, as well as chill the investment needed to keep the Internet growing," the report warns.

It must be weird being a "conservative" where everything is precisely the opposite of what you say. This argument is completely absurd and based on ideology rather than data. It's a sick joke. The sheer stupidity of this argument destroys any credibility Heritage might have had otherwise on this topic.

I do agree that deregulation is needed. The first step: getting rid of all that red tape that you need to start a competing business. And to give newbies a fair start, how about a policy of open access with the infrastructure that was provided by federal funds, including special tax cuts. IIRC, that put the amount of infrastructure the federal government has paid for somewhere around 10 times what consumers actually get. Since I'm feeling gracious, I'll even be okay with cutting that to what we've got right now, making that about a 90% discount on the debt.

Deregulation is what led to this mess in the first place. Oh, and "open access with... infrastructure that was provided by federal funds" is pinko commie liberal overspending, by the reckoning of conservative economics. As far as the Heritage group is concerned, the ISPs can do whatever they want, up to and including shutting out anyone (Hulu, Youtube, etc.) who doesn't pay extra for the privilege of being carried through their servers. And if you want to own every radio station in a market, that's fine too. Customers who don't like your stations can just... not listen to radio, I guess.

It still amazes me how Conservatives talk about Net Neutrality as a bad thing in any way shape or form for the consumer. They talk about choice in the free market but then immediately bash the very regulations (such as NN or Line Sharing) that are necessary to return anything resembling a free market to the ISP business.

This is how conservatives do everything. They convince poor people to vote for them by telling them deregulating the banks will give them easier access to money, or that private health care provides better health care to all. They're smart enough to know to feed people these lies because it's pretty obvious that telling them the truth, that removal of regulations is the best way for the rich to get richer on the backs of everyone else, just isn't gonna be very popular.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.